It seems a minor quibble to me, but Bob Tisdale takes issue because there was one quarter - back eight years ago - when the quarterly increase was a bit higher than the amount the heat rose this past quarter. Bob is really incensed, writing as part of the title: "...Alarmist Writes Science Fiction" and in the text::

Some might think he’s an author of science fiction after reading the opening to his post...

It could be argued that David was merely a bit lax in his expression. By "increased more" did David mean the ocean heat content is higher than ever observed before or did he mean the difference from one quarter to the next has never been greater?

Even if David did make a mistake and mean the latter, it's hardly 'science fiction' to miss a slightly higher change in a single quarter going back eight years earlier.

The oceans are heating up ... quickly

Lets look at the record. The latest quarter is the highest ever heat content in the record. The quarterly record down to 2000 meters only goes back eight years to March 2005 and the heat content has risen by about 30% of the total heat gained since the 1960s in that time. We've already got an idea of the heat content of the top two kilometres of ocean going back to the 1950s in the top chart above. The heat is accumulating at a very fast pace. (Click to enlarge.)

:

Don't Worry...

Bob Tisdale is well aware that WUWT-ers don't like scary stuff, so what he does is plot the difference from one quarter to the next. He then he seems to argue that because the change from this quarter to the previous one was once exceeded by the change in a previous quarter (back in December quarter 2005), there is "nothing to worry about". You can see the amount of change each quarter in this chart (click to enlarge):

Okay, the above chart doesn't look scary until you see what it is. Once you realise it's the change in heat content from quarter to the next (non-cumulative), and that there are many more quarters in which heat content is rising than falling, it becomes more of a concern.

Let's look at this ocean heat accumulation more closely. Heat content rose by 10.4x1022 joules in only eight years. In the last quarter it rose by 2.7x1022 joules or 26% of the total amount of heat added over that period. Since the 1960s the heat content has risen by nearly 30x1022 joules. That's a lot of Hiroshima bombs.

Certainly there are ups and downs over time - but overall the heat content of the ocean is going up, up, up.

Bob's next trick

So Bob tricks his readers by making it look like there's not much change. What does he do next? Well, his next trick is to show his readers some ocean areas where there hasn't been a huge change in warming - since 2005 only - the North Atlantic and the North Pacific. (I haven't checked these but let's assume he is correct).

Then he shows the tropical Pacific and the extra-tropical North Pacific for the period since the 1950s, where there has been quite a bit of warming. What does he write about that? Well, true to form Bob blames it on the magical ENSO:

It’s plainly obvious that the ocean heat content of the tropical Pacific would cool over the long-term without the 1973-76 and 1995/96 La Niña events.

But Bob - why didn't it cool again with all the El Niños over that period - huh? Thousands of WUWT readers are clamouring for the answer....well, no, not really. They are too busy ad hom-ing David Appell to take much notice of what Bob wrote about ocean heat content and his fixation on the magical leaping and cavorting of ENSO :(

Bob's perpetual warming machine

To sum up, Bob seems to be telling his readers that a perpetual warming of the world's oceans is 'normal'. That it's of no consequence that the heat content of the top two kilometres of ocean has risen by 10.4x1022 joules in only eight years. I wonder how long he will think like that? Can you see him saying down the track: "Oceans are boiling*? Nothing to worry about, folks. The quarterly change has been higher in the past!"

B..b..but It's Natural!

What's weird is all the congratulations Bob gets for outing the scaremonger. Must be that conservative brain at work again, relieved that the numbers can't be all that scary because Bob told them "it's natural".

3 comments:

J Bowers
said...

"Bob Tisdale is well aware that WUWT-ers don't like scary stuff"

Pretty much sums up climate change denial. And tobacco denial. And asbestos denial. Or is it because the climate and ciggies don't respond to a civilianised assault rifle being pointed at them? One to ponder.

New Look

G'day. HotWhopper is having a facelift. Do let me know if you find anything missing or broken.

When you read older articles on a desktop or notebook, you may find the sidebar moves down the page, instead of being on the side. That can happen with some older articles if your browser is not the full width of your computer screen. I am not planning to check every previous post, so if you come across something particularly annoying, send me an email and I'll fix it. Or you can add your thoughts to this feedback article.

You can use the menu up top to get to the blogroll or whatever it is you might be looking for on the sidebar.

When moderation shows as ON, there may be a short or occasionally longer delay before comments appear. When moderation is OFF, comments will appear as soon as they are posted.

All you need to know about WUWT

WUWT insider Willis Eschenbach tells you all you need to know about Anthony Watts and his blog, WattsUpWithThat (WUWT). As part of his scathing commentary, Wondering Willis accuses Anthony Watts of being clueless about the blog articles he posts. To paraphrase:

Even if Anthony had a year to analyze and dissect each piece...(he couldn't tell if it would)... stand the harsh light of public exposure.

Definition of Denier (Oxford): A person who denies something, especially someone who refuses to admit the truth of a concept or proposition that is supported by the majority of scientific or historical evidence.
‘a prominent denier of global warming’
‘a climate change denier’

Alternative definition: A former French coin, equal to one twelfth of a Sou, which was withdrawn in the 19th century. Oxford. (The denier has since resurfaced with reduced value.)